5. Robert K.

Merton:

Latent and manifest functions,

The function can be explained as the result or consequence of people’s action.

These consequences can be either latent function or manifest function in any
social institution. The distinction is explained by Robert K. Merton in his book, Social
Theory and Social Structure, in 1949.

Latent functions are those functions which are unintended or unrecognized consequences
of any social pattern. They are present but are not immediately obvious. On the other
hand, the intended, conscious, or deliberate functions of the social policies or action which
are created for the benefit of the society are called manifest functions. Manifest functions
are generally expected from the institutions to be fulfilled. For example, hospitals are
expected to provide better healthcare to the people or treat the patients going through any
kinds of diseases, or those who met with an accident, etc. Similarly, an example of latent
function can be that in a hospital the doctors while treating a patient suffering from a certain
kind of incurable disease somehow saves the patient, thus, discovering a new method of
treating that particular disease. This distinction between the latent function and the manifest
function is the reason sociologists tend to study beyond the reasons the individuals,
institutions, etc normally offer for their actions. They tend to search for the social
consequences that lead to the various practices of society.
In case of manifest functions, the actor is aware of the consequences of his action
while in the latent functions, the actor is not aware of his actions.  For instance, if a
rule is made, the manifest function will be the intended function for the fulfillment of
which the rule is made. On the contrary, the unintended function is the latent
function, e.g. if the rule is made in order to maintain peace, but it harms the public,
that harm will be the latent function. Manifest functions are beneficial in nature,
whereas, latent functions can harm as well as benefit society. Latent functions
therefore have the tendency to turn into dysfunctions. However, this is not always the
case. Dysfunctions are the latent functions which harm the society, create social
disorder and conflict. Latent functions often go unnoticed, unless they are
dysfunctions or functions resulting in negative outcomes. It is not unnatural for
manifest functions to be dysfunctional at times; in many cases, it is already known
that policy or action might lead to some kind of a negative consequence. But, it is the
latent dysfunctions which are of greater concern because being unknown and
unpredictable, they tend to bear more harm to the society which is often irreparable.

Talcott Parsons was more interested in understanding the manifest functions of

social behavior, whereas according to Merton latent functions enhance the
understanding about the society.  Latent functions can at times support the manifest
functions, e.g. a school that not only provides education but also serve the
healthcare needs of poor children studying there. They might at times undermine the
manifest functions. For example, the bureaucratic institution’s main task is to
complement the work of the government and help it function efficiently. If its complex
structure makes decision making even slower, then the latent function is viewed as
undermining the manifest functions. However, in many instances, latent function
might be irrelevant to the manifest functions.
\ DEFINITION:
Latent functions: Functional consequences that are not intended or recognized by the members
of a social system in which they occur.
Manifest functions: The functions of a type of social activity that are known to and intended by the
individuals involved in the activity.
BACKGROUND:

Until the 1960s, functionalist thought was probably the leading theoretical tradition in sociology,
particularly in the United States. Talcott Parsons (1902- 79) and Robert K. Merton (1910-2003),
who each drew extensively on Durkheim, were two of its most prominent adherents. Merton’s
version of functionalism has been particularly influential.
Robert Merton, pursued a version of Parsons’s functionalism, but did so in a much more critical
way. Merton saw that while many sociological studies focused on either the macro-level of
society as a whole or the micro-level of social interactions, this polarization had failed to ‘fill in the
gaps’ between macro- and micro-levels. To rectify this, Merton argued for middle range theories
in particular areas or on specific subjects. Merton criticized some of the more extreme and
indefensible aspects of structural functionalism. But equally important, his new conceptual
insights helped give structural functionalism a continuing usefulness.
Although both Merton and Parsons are associated with structural functionalism, there are
important differences between them.
 While Parsons advocated the creation of grand, overarching theories, Merton favoured
more limited, middle range theories.
 Merton was more favourable toward Marxian theories than Parsons was.
MERTON’S CRITICISM OF THE FUNCTIONALIST ANALYSIS OF SOCIETY:

Merton criticized what he saw as the three basic postulates of functional analysis as it was
developed by anthropologists such as Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown.
The first is the postulate of the functional unity of society. This postulate holds that all
standardized social and cultural beliefs and practices are functional for society as a whole as well
as for individuals in society. This view implies that the various parts of a social system must show
a high level of integration. However, Merton maintained that although it may be true of small,
primitive societies, this generalization cannot be extended to larger, more complex societies.
Merton argues that functional unity is a matter of degree. Its extent must be determined by
investigation rather than simply beginning with the assumption that it exists.
The second postulate is the universal functionalism. That is, it is argued that all
standardized social and cultural forms and structures have positive functions.
Merton argued that this contradicts what we find in the real world. It is clear that not
every structure, custom, idea, belief, and so forth, has positive functions. He suggests
that functionalist analysis should proceed from assumption that any part of society
may be functional, dysfunctional or non-functional. For example, poverty may be
seen as dysfunctional for the poor but functional for the non-poor and for society as a
whole.
The third is the postulate of indispensability. The argument here is that all
standardized aspects of society not only have positive functions but also represent
indispensable parts of the working whole. This postulate leads to the idea that all
structures and functions are functionally necessary for society. Functionalists have
often seen religion in this light. For example, Davis and Moore claim that religion
plays a unique and indispensable part in the society. Merton questions this
assumption of indispensability and argues that the same functional prerequisites
may be met by a range of alternative institutions. For example a political ideology
like communism can provide a functional alternative to religion.
Merton’s position was that all these functional postulates rely on no empirical assertions based
on abstract, theoretical systems. At a minimum, it is the responsibility of the sociologist to
examine each empirically. Merton’s belief that empirical tests, not theoretical assertions, are
crucial to functional analysis led him to develop his “paradigm” of functional analysis as a guide
to the integration of theory and research.
FUNCTION:

Functions, according to Merton, are defined as “those observed consequences which make for the
adaptation or adjustment of a given system”.
DYSFUNCTION:

However, there is a clear ideological bias when one focuses only on adaptation or adjustment,
for they are always positive consequences. It is important to note that one social fact can have
negative consequences for another social fact. To rectify this serious omission in early structural
functionalism, Merton developed the idea of a dysfunction.  Just as structures or institutions
could contribute to the maintenance of other parts of the social system, they also could have
negative consequences for them.

NON-FUNCTIONS:

Merton also posited the idea of non-functions, which he defined as consequences that are simply
irrelevant to the system under consideration. Included here might be social forms that are
“survivals” from earlier historical times. Although they may have had positive or negative
consequences in the past, they have no significant effect on contemporary society.
Merton added the idea that there must be levels of functional analysis.  Functionalists had
generally restricted themselves to analysis of the society as a whole, but Merton made it clear
that analysis also could be done on an organization, institution, or group.
MANIFEST AND LATENT FUNCTIONS:

Merton also introduced the concepts of manifest and latent functions. These two terms have also
been important additions to functional analysis. In simple terms, manifest functions are those that
are intended, whereas latent functions are unintended. The manifest function of slavery, for
example, was to increase the economic productivity of the South America, but it had the latent
function of providing a vast underclass that served to increase the social status of southern
whites, both rich and poor.
This idea is related to another of Merton’s concepts— unanticipated consequences.  Actions have
both intended and unintended consequences. Although everyone is aware of the intended
consequences, sociological analysis is required to uncover the unintended consequences;
indeed, to some this is the very essence of sociology.
Peter Berger has called this “debunking”, or looking beyond stated intentions to real effects.  
Merton made it clear that unanticipated consequences and latent functions are not the same. A
latent function is one type of unanticipated consequence, one that is functional for the designated
system. But there are two other types of unanticipated consequences: “those that are
dysfunctional for a designated system, and these comprise the latent dysfunctions”, and “those which
are irrelevant to the system which they affect neither functionally nor dysfunctionally“.
CONCLUSION:

As further clarification of functional theory, Merton pointed out that a structure may be
dysfunctional for the system as a whole yet may continue to exist. One might make a good case
that discrimination against blacks, females, and other minority groups is dysfunctional for society,
yet it continues to exist because it is functional for a part of the social system; for example,
discrimination against females is generally functional for males. However, these forms of
discrimination are not without some dysfunctions, even for the group for which they are
functional. Males do suffer from their discrimination against females. One could argue that these
forms of discrimination adversely affect those who discriminate by keeping vast numbers of
people underproductive and by increasing the likelihood of social conflict.

Merton contended that not all structures are indispensable to the workings of the social system.
Some parts of our social system can be eliminated. This helps functional theory overcome
another of its conservative biases. By recognizing that some structures are expendable,
functionalism opens the way for meaningful social change. Our society, for example, could
continue to exist (and even be improved) by the elimination of discrimination against various
minority groups.
Thus, Merton’s clarifications are of great utility to sociologists who wish to perform structural-
functional analyses

anomie,

Anomie is a social condition in which there is a disintegration or

disappearance of the norms and values that were previously common to the
society. The concept, thought of as “normlessness,” was developed by the
founding sociologist, Émile Durkheim. He discovered, through research, that
anomie occurs during and follows periods of drastic and rapid changes to the
social, economic, or political structures of society. It is, per Durkheim's view, a
transition phase wherein the values and norms common during one period are
no longer valid, but new ones have not yet evolved to take their place.

A Feeling of Disconnection
People who lived during periods of anomie typically feel disconnected from
their society because they no longer see the norms and values that they hold
dear reflected in society itself. This leads to the feeling that one does not
belong and is not meaningfully connected to others. For some, this may mean
that the role they play (or played) and their identity is no longer valued by
society. Because of this, anomie can foster the feeling that one lacks purpose,
engender hopelessness, and encourage deviance and crime.

Anomie According to Émile Durkheim

Though the concept of anomie is most closely associated with Durkheim's
study of suicide, in fact, he first wrote about it in his 1893 book The Division of
Labor in Society. In this book, Durkheim wrote about an anomic division of
labor, a phrase he used to describe a disordered division of labor in which
some groups no longer fit in, though they did in the past. Durkheim saw that
this occurred as European societies industrialized and the nature of work
changed along with the development of a more complex division of labor.

He framed this as a clash between the mechanical solidarity of

homogeneous, traditional societies and the organic solidarity that keeps more
complex societies together. According to Durkheim, anomie could not occur in
the context of organic solidarity because this heterogeneous form of solidarity
allows for the division of labor to evolve as needed, such that none are left out
and all play a meaningful role.
Anomic Suicide
A few years later, Durkheim further elaborated his concept of anomie in his
1897 book, Suicide: A Study in Sociology. He identified anomic suicide as a
form of taking one's life that is motivated by the experience of
anomie. Durkheim found, through a study of suicide rates of Protestants and
Catholics in nineteenth-century Europe, that the suicide rate was higher
among Protestants. Understanding the different values of the two forms of
Christianity, Durkheim theorized that this occurred because Protestant culture
placed a higher value on individualism. This made Protestants less likely to
develop close communal ties that might sustain them during times of
emotional distress, which in turn made them more susceptible to suicide.
Conversely, he reasoned that belonging to the Catholic faith provided greater
social control and cohesion to a community, which would decrease the risk of
anomie and anomic suicide. The sociological implication is that strong social
ties help people and groups survive periods of change and tumult in society.

Breakdown of Ties That Bind People Together

Considering the whole of Durkheim's writing on anomie, one can see that he
saw it as a breakdown of the ties that bind people together to make a
functional society, a state of social derangement. Periods of anomie are
unstable, chaotic, and often rife with conflict because the social force of the
norms and values that otherwise provide stability is weakened or missing.

Merton's Theory of Anomie and Deviance

Durkheim's theory of anomie proved influential to American
sociologist Robert K. Merton, who pioneered the sociology of deviance and is
considered one of the most influential sociologists in the United States.
Building on Durkheim's theory that anomie is a social condition in which
people's norms and values no longer sync with those of society, Merton
created the structural strain theory, which explains how anomie lead to
deviance and crime. The theory states that when society does not provide the
necessary legitimate and legal means that allow people to achieve culturally
valued goals, people seek out alternative means that may simply break from
the norm, or may violate norms and laws. For example, if society does not
provide enough jobs that pay a living wage so that people can work to survive,
many will turn to criminal methods of earning a living. So for Merton,
deviance, and crime are, in large part, a result of anomie, a state of social
disorder.

conformity and deviance,

Meaning of Conformity
Conformity and deviance are two responses to real or
imagined pressure from others. Conformity means going
along with one’s peers-individuals of a person’s own status.
According to Robert Merton refers to the acceptance of
cultural goals and the legitimate or approved means of
achieving them.
Deviance is a behaviour that violates the standards of conduct
or expectations or social norms of a group or society.
Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, and the mentally ill would
be classified as deviants. Being late for class is categorized as
a deviant act: the same is true of wearing jeans to a formal
wedding. On the basis of the sociological definition, we are all
deviant from time to time.
Factors Influencing Conformity
1. In a face to face, group conformity is greater than when
the individual gets a chance to express his view secretly. Such
as open voting and secret voting. Conformity is more found in
open voting than in secret voting.
2. If a person expresses his feelings in writing before he
joins group conformity is reduced to some extent.
3. In a group feeling a sense of belongingness to the group
and the feeling that he is a part of the group increases
conformity with the group.
4. A person having status influences another person’s
behaviour and conformity and influence work together.
Causes of conformity[1]
Harry M. Johnson has spoken of a few causes of conformity
to social norms. Some of them may be briefed here.
1. Socialization: It is through the process of socialization
that social norms are internalized by the individuals. Hence
norms become an inseparable part of their personality. Proper
social training always supports conformity.
2. Insulation: Role conflict and conflict in the norms that
apply to the same actor may contribute to deviance. But some
built-in arrangements may serve to reduce normative conflict
and thereby contribute to conformity.
1. One such arrangement is that the norms that might
conflict are prevented from doing so by applying to
different times and places.
2. Another kind of insulation is that a given actor
carries out the activities of his various roles with or
face-to-face with a different role- sets. For example,
a bank manager may learn music through his own
sub-ordinate during non-official working hours
accepting him as his own teacher. He may give
rewards and show respect to his sub-ordinate in this
regard. But during the working hours, the sub-
ordinate will have to accept his inferior status and
obey the commands of the manager.
Thus, even though the individuals remain the same
in both the contexts their roles and role expectations
differ markedly. The clarity with regard to the role
expectations helps to reduce uncertainty and conflict
and support conformity.
3. Hierarchy of Norms: Norms that apply to the same
actor are found to be in the form of a hierarchy. It means
 the norms are ranked in order of precedence. Hence if
role expectations conflict with one another the actor has
grounds for making a choice.
The hierarchy of norms as well as their time and place
aspect is part of the culture. For example, a soldier may
be put to such a conflicting situation in which either he
will have to attend to the needs of the ailing mother who
is on the deathbed or rush to the battle-ground to attend
to the urgent call of the army.
The hierarchy of values and norms of his society help the
soldier to take the appropriate decision. It is through
socialisation the hierarchical aspects of the norms are
learnt. If the different aspects of a cultural system are
properly integrated and if socialisation helps the
individual to understand this integration he will have no
difficulty in following the expected forms of behaviour.
The integration of the cultural system serves as a guide
for individual behaviour.
4. Social Control: Various formal, as well as informal
means of social control, help the socialized actor to
imagine and anticipate what would happen to him if he
violated the norms. Thus, sanctions lead the conformity
even though they are not actually applied.
4. Ideology: People’s conformity to group norms depends
to some extent upon the ideas and ideology that they
hold. The norms partly express broader values that are
more purely and precisely emphasized in ideology.
Ideology strengthens faith in the existing system.
Ideology adds to the norms themselves a kind of
“intellectual” support. Hence it helps to motivate people
to conform to its norms.
 4. Vested Interest: Conformity to social norms does not
always depend upon idealistic motives alone. Sometimes,
due to vested interest or self-interest also people conform
to them. Norms define rights as well as obligations. They
protect our rights also. Some of the rights protect the
exclusion of other members.
Those who enjoy such advantages are likely to be satisfied,
with the norms that protect them. Hence, they support these
norms with a greater sense of conviction than the
disadvantaged persons. Property rights are a good example
in this regard.
The term ‘vested interest’ is used here in a neutral sense.
Hence it may represent one’s genuine interests or purely
selfish interests. Thus, landlord’s rents are vested interests
for they are legitimate. Illicit liquor makers support
prohibition laws with a vested interest that it would help
them to make money.
Other Causes
Robert Bierstedt gives four causes for the question ‘Why we
conform to the norms.’ They maybe briefly discussed here.
1. Indoctrination: We conform to the norms simply
because we have been indoctrinated to do so. Indoctrination
refers to the process of injecting into the personality of the
child the group norms. We are taught, for example, to take our
bath at certain times, to wash our clothes, to respect our
elders, to avoid vulgarity, to walk on the1 right side of the
road, and so on./The norms are indoctrinated through the
process of socialisation. As a result, they become a part and
parcel of the personality of the individual. Conformity to the
norms becomes very natural because of indoctrination.
2. Habituation: We conform, to the worms because we
become habituated to them. What is customary is likely to
become in many cases habitual. Some of the norms are
indoctrinated in the beginning, but they become habitual
practices afterwards. We are taught to wash our hands and
mouth after the meal but after a while, it becomes a matter of
habit.
Repetition makes a practice a habit and most of the
folkways come to be rooted in the individual in this way.
When one is habituated to practice, one observes it
automatically, without thinking or putting forth
deliberate attempts. Habituation reinforces the norms and
guarantees the regularity of conformity.
3. Utility: We appreciate the unity of norms and hence we
conform to them. Norms help us to interact with others
with much comfort and ease.
For example, (i) we are asked to sell the tickets to a
drama show for which only a limited number of seats are
available. Then we prefer to sell them to those who come
first to purchase them. We justify our action with the
expression “first come first served” (ii) similarly we
recognize that the flow of traffic at busy intersections is
smoother and less dangerous when signal lights are
installed.
Thus, we stop at a red light and start at a green one. We
find it reasonable to obey the traffic rule for it has the
slogan “the life you save may be your own”. In many
social situations, we realized the utility of the norms to
which we conform.
4. Group Identification: We conform to the norms of our
own social groups rather than to those of groups to which
 we do not belong. We thus conform to the norms because
conformity is a means of group identification. By
conformity to the norms, we express our identification
with the groups.
Sometimes, we even conform to some irrational
folkways because they are our own and they identify us
with our own society and our own social groups. For
example, a particular student tries to bring home-
prepared lunch to the college to eat during the lunch
interval (even though it is very difficult for him to bring
it because of a particular domestic situation) just to be in
the company of his fellow members of the ‘clique’.
In some situations, we may try to conform to the norms
of the group to which we would like to belong and to
identify ourselves. Such groups are called by Merton
‘reference groups.’
For example, a medical student or a law graduate may
begin to observe and conform to the norms of doctors or
lawyers. Even in this case group identification is
significant.

 Conformity is that action which is oriented to social norms or expectations. It

falls within the toleration prescribed by the society.
 Deviance is non-conformity or deviating from the accepted path. Deviant in
one society may be normal in other societies.
 Merton views Anomie as a part of the system and a general feature of society.
He defines its as ‘A situation in which there is a  discrepancy between culturally
defined goals and structural means available to achieve them. Deviance is
considered as a result of Anomie.

 
Social Deviance: Types and Causes

For sociologists, the term

deviance does not mean
pervasion or depravity.
Deviance is behaviour that
violates the standards of
conduct or expectations of a
group or society. For
instances, being late for class
is categorized as a deviant act;
the same is true of wearing
jeans to a formal wedding. On
the basis of the sociological
definition, we are all deviant
from time to time. Each of us
violates common social norms
in certain situations.
Deviance involves the violation of group
norms, which may or may not be formalized
into law. It is a comprehensive concept that
includes not only criminal behaviour but also
many actions that are not subject to
prosecution. For example, the public official
who takes a bribe has defied social norms.
From a sociological perspective, deviance is
hardly objective rather it is subject to the
social definition within a particular society
and at a particular time. For that reason, what
is considered deviant can shift from one social
era to another. In most instances, those
individuals and groups with the greatest status
and power define what is acceptable and what
is deviant. For example, despite serious
medical warnings against the dangers of
tobacco made as long as 30 years ago,
cigarette smoking continued to be accepted in
good part because of the power of tobacco
farmers and cigarette manufacturers. Only
after a long campaign led by public health and
anticancer activists did cigarette smoking
become more of deviant activity. Today, many
state and local laws limit where people can
smoke.
Types of Deviance[1]
Deviance may assume different forms. Some
of them may be noted here.
1. Innovation: Society sets forth goals for
the individuals to aim at and also lay down
means to achieve them. When a person
accepts both goals and means the result is
generally “conformity”. Sometimes, a person
may accept the goal but not the means. He
may innovate or create his own means for
achieving the goals and in this sense, he
becomes a deviant.
If these innovative means brings positive
results it poses no problem for the social
order and if it brings negative results it
may pose a danger to society. Example:
Some poor people and pleasure-seekers
may be forced to ‘innovate’ or resort to
illegitimate, “dishonest” mean to get
money. Such “innovators’ are problematic
deviants.
2. Ritualism: Sometimes a person gives up
important social values yet does lip service
to them by carefully observing related
norms of behaviour. They are ritualists.
They abandon the pursuit of success as
fruitless and yet strictly adhere to the
prescribed means.
They regard rules as sacred. They tend to
lower their aspirations and never expect
success. Because they find themselves
unable to break out of their commitment to
the rules./Ritualists are also deviants
because such persons refuse to take
courageous and possibly dangerous action
demanded by true adherence to values. On
the other hand, they take refuge in neutral
but safe behaviour which looks like decent
conformity.
Example:
A person stabbed to death within the sight
of a number of neighbours who refuse to
get themselves involved in the case. This
kind of behaviour is ritualistic. It is
difficult to criticise such behaviour
 harshly. It is also a form of deviance
because norms exist or should exist to
serve values. They should not eclipse
values or transcend them.
3. Retreatism: The rejection of both values
and norms is ‘retreatism’. It is in one way
or another of ‘dropping out’ of society.
The person who drops out ‘resigns’ so to
speak. Those who ‘retreat’ from society
refuse to pursue wealth either by legal or
illegal means.
They also refuse to lead a ‘conventional’
life. They are unable to get success
‘honestly’. They are not able to break the
conventional procedure because of the
strongly internalised norm. The best
solution to their dilemma is to ‘drop out’
of society. Hence ‘retreatism’ is a kind of
passive rejection of the goal of success and
of respectable occupational activities.
According to Merton, in this category fall
“some of the adaptive activities of
psychotics, autists, pariahs, outcasts,
vagrants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic
 drunkards and drug addicts.” Such people
receive strong disapproval because they
care little about the values most people
live by.
4. Rebellion: Rebellion is another response
open to those who reject both ends and
means. Some people reject the prevailing
order and engage in efforts to replace that
order. They try to substitute new ends and
means for those that exist.
They are called ‘rebels.’ Rebellion is
produced by alienation from both values
and norms. Instead of ‘retreating’, the
rebel gives active support and loyalty to an
incompatible set of values and norms.
He feels that they are superior to those of
conventional society. He seeks some
reconstruction, some change in the
existing order. He may even attempt at the
complete destruction of that order or
struggle to replace it with another order.
Rebellion may vary from small-scale to
that greater scale.
 Example:
A student giving up education in the name
of doing greater things is an example of
small-scale rebellion. A law-abiding young
man going away from society to form a
criminal gang to take revenge upon some
authority is an example of greater-scale
rebellion. Political and religious
revolutions that were initiated by one or
the other individual also come under this
category.
Causes of deviant behaviour
Deviant behaviour may be caused due to the
individual inability or failure to conform to the
social norms or the societies failure to make
its components follow the norms set by it as
normal behaviour. The inability to conform
may be the result of a mental or physical
defect. On account of mental illness, a person
is unable to perceive and respond to realities
in an orderly and rational manner. Hence, he
becomes a social deviant. The causes of
mental illness may be both physical and
social. The stresses and strains of modern
social life produce mental illness. But some
people fail to conform even though they are
physically and mentally capable of learning
conventional behaviour. To explain such
causes of deviation some theories have been
put forward. These are:
1. Physical-type theories: These theories
seek to relate deviant behaviour with body
type. Lombroso was of the view that certain
body types are more given to deviant
behaviour than others. Deviants were
classified into physical types to explain their
behaviour. A number of serious errors have
been pointed out in the method of their
classification.
2. Psychoanalytic theories: These theories
attribute deviant behaviour to the conflicts in
human personality. Freud was a leading
psychoanalyst. He gave the concepts of id, ego
and superego. Deviant behaviour is the result
of conflicts between the id and the ego. The
psychoanalytic theory is still improved by
empirical research. Sometimes, culture
frustrates biological drives and impulses
leading thereby to deviant behaviour. Thus,
our culture makes approved provision for the
satisfaction of sexual drives of the unmarried,
widowed or separated.
3. Failure to Socialization: Both types of
theories fail to explain deviant behaviour
adequately. Everyone affected with physical
or mental illness does not become a deviant
likewise, every member of society is frustrated
by the clash of his biological drives with the
taboos of this culture, but not everyone
becomes a deviant. The social scientists are of
the opinion that some persons are deviant
because the socialization process has failed in
some way to integrate the cultural norms and
he behaves in an unexpected manner. His
lapses are rare. Behaviour norms are mainly
learnt in the family.
4. Cultural Conflicts: Society is an
extremely heterogeneous society. There are
many sets of norms and values which compete
with one another. The family norms may come
into conflict with the norms of a trade union.
One religion teaches one thing, another
teaches a different thing. The school teaches
respect and obedience. The party teaches
resistance and secularism. The religious
system teaches that one should be generous
and self-sacrificing, but our economic system
rewards those who are ruthless and selfish.
Our formal mores demand chastity until
marriage, but our films present too much sex.
Young people are exposed to sexual literature.
Thus, cultural conflicts are a unique feature of
the modern complex and changing society.
They are found virtually in all societies.
5. Anomie: Anomie is a condition of
normlessness. By normlessness we do not
mean that modern societies have no norms,
instead, it means that they have many sets of
norms with none of them clearly binding on
everybody. The individual does not know
which norms to follow, whether to follow the
norms of the family or of the school. Anomie
thus arises from the confusion and conflict of
norms. People in modern society move about
too rapidly to be bound to the norms of any
particular groups.
 In traditional societies, people were guided
by a coherent set of traditions which they
followed with little deviation. But the
modern society lacks coherent traditions,
with different groupings having different
norms. According to Durkheim “when
there is a sudden change, the normative
structure of the regulating norms of society
is slackened, hence, man does not know
what is wrong or what is right, his
impulses are excessive, to satisfy them, he
seeks anomie”. The post-Soviet Union
societies are a good example of this.
6. Personal Factors: Sometimes personal
factors may also be involved in the genesis
of deviant. As a result of their particular
experiences, many people acquire deviant
attitudes and habits. An ugly face may
deprive some people of the opportunity to
participate in the affairs of the community.
Some persons are so seriously affected by
an experience that they isolate themselves
from certain groups or situations. Thus,
some people may refuse to ride trains
 because of some accident in which they
were involved. The sight of a dead man led
Lord Buddha to renounce the crown. A
mouse eating the food offered to the idol
made Swami Dayanand a critic of idol
worship.
6. Social Location: The location of people in
the social structure also causes deviant
behaviour. The position a person occupies
in the stratification system, his position in
the age and sex structure of the society and
his position in the special arrangements of
the society make a difference in how he
behaves. The life chances of people
depend on the particular position they
occupy in society.
The emergence of the new norms through
deviant behaviour can be easily seen in family
relationships. In the nineteenth century a
woman going out of the norm to work in an
office and earn an independent living was a
deviant but today it is commonplace. It may,
however, be noted that all forms of deviation
are not socially useful. The behaviour of the
animal, the sex deviant or the drunk rarely
contributes to the creation of a socially useful
norm. It is only a few forms of deviant
behaviour that may become future norms. The
behaviour of individual due to social conflict
leads to the formation of new norms.

APPLICATION OF STRUCTURAL STRAIN AND DEVIANCE

 Merton  gives the example of  American dream.

 American Society places a great emphasis on material success but many
people fail to achieve this success .
 It is because structural means are not sufficient.
 Only a few people reach at the top and this creates a feeling of depreciation
among others.
 Not all groups of people have equal access to those means.
 The result is a structural strain that produces deviance.
 Lower class individuals are most likely to experience these strains.
 These individuals are more likely to turn to crime.
 
RESPONSES OF A DEVIANT PERSON

 Conformist
She accepts both goals and means and despite their utility or fairness, she keeps
pursuing them. Eg: A student keeps on learning to get into a professional career
(the goal) even though the method is not suitable for him.
 Innovator
It occurs when an individual accept culturally defined goals but reject socially
accepted means. Innovators are imperfectly socialized. Eg: Scientists, Thieves.
 Ritualist
A Ritualist accepts socially understandable means but fails to understand the
goals. Eg: Red-tapism in bureaucracy.
 Retreatist
It involves rejection of both means and goals. They are indifferent to socio-cultural
norms and values. Eg: Alcoholics, vagrants, etc
 Rebellion
Involves rejection of both goals and means and then the creation of new means
and goals. Eg: Social Reformers

ANOMIE AS A DYSFUNCTION
 Anomie is a particular example of structural functionalism.
 The basic idea of Robert K. Merton’s anomie theory is that most people strive
to achieve culturally recognized goals. A state of anomie develops when access
to these goals is blocked to entire groups of people or individuals. 
 As per his functional paradigm, he is mainly concerned with dysfunctions.
 Merton also introduces an element of criticism to the process of stratification
in society which is seen as totally functional by the earlier structural functionalists.

CRITICISM

 Merton refers to goals and means, but there may be other aspects of social
structure which may cause Anomie.
 Albert Cohen argues that deviance is due to a specific subculture that
members of a particular subgroup develops. Hence, it is collective in nature and
not at an individual level as Merton has tried to prove.
 A person at different times may respond to the same type of social impetus
differently. This shows that anomic behaviour depends on the individual as well.
 Lemert and Laurie Taylor argue that those who wield power also decide who
will be deviant. Definitions of deviance don’t reflect consensus of society.

Robert Merton in his theoretical analysis of ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ takes inspiration from
Durkheim‘s work. It provided the intellectual foundation for Merton‘s attempt to develop a macro-
level explanation of rates of norm violating behaviour in American society.
In contrast to Durkheim, Merton bases his theory on sociological assumptions about human
nature. Merton replaces Durkheim‘s conception of limitless needs and appetites with the
assumption that human needs and desires are primarily the product of a social process:
i.e., cultural socialization. For instance, people raised in a society where cultural values
emphasize material goals will learn to strive for economic success.
Anomie, for Durkheim, referred to the failure of society to regulate or constrain the ends or goals
of human desire. Merton, on the other hand, is more concerned with social regulation of the
means people use to obtain material goals.

MERTON’S THEORY OF DEVIANCE: (STRAIN THEORY)

Merton in his theory of deviance indicates that deviants are not a cub-cultural group. Rather
people manifest deviant behaviour in different spheres of social life. A mismatch between cultural
prescriptive means and socially prescriptive goals give way to deviant behaviour. He finds out
that deviant behaviour persists in society because it has not outlived its function therefore
sociology should not be concerned about deviance as a pathological problem rather one should
study the latent and manifest orientations of deviance.

Merton considers that anomie is not a product of rapid social change. Rather it is a form of
behaviour manifested by the people when they are suffering from social strain. Therefore anomie
theory is also known as social strain theory. The strain is the product of mismatch between
culturally prescriptive means and socially prescriptive goals. When people experience social
strain, they channelize there strains in different ways in order to manifest different forms of
anomic behaviour. At different points of time. These forms of deviant behaviours are functional,
dysfunctional and non-functional.

This chronic discrepancy between cultural promises and structural realities not only undermines
social support for institutional norms but also promotes violations of those norms. Just how do
people adapt to these environmental pressures? Merton‘s answer to this question is perhaps his
single most important contribution to the anomie tradition.

Merton presents an analytical typology, shown in the following table, of individual adaptations to
the discrepancy between culture and social structure.

MERTON’S TYPOLOGY OF INDIVIDUAL ADAPTATIONS TO ENVIORNMENTAL PRESSURES

TYPE OF ADAPTATION CULTURAL GOAL INSTITUTIONALIZED M

1.       Conformity            +                       +

2.       Innovation            +                       –

3.       Ritualism            –                       +

4.       Retreatism            –                       –

5.       Rebellion            +/-                      +/-

 

Note: (+) signifies acceptance; (–) signifies rejection; and (+/-) signifies rejection of prevailing goal or
means and substitution of new goal or means.
These adaptations describe the kinds of social roles people adopt in response to cultural and
structural pressures.

 Conformity, is a non-deviant adaptation where people continue to engage in legitimate

occupational or educational roles despite environmental pressures toward deviant behaviour. That is,
the conformist accepts and strives for the cultural goal of material success (+) by following
institutionalized means (+).
 Innovation, on the other hand, involves acceptance of the cultural goal (+) but rejection of
legitimate, institutionalized means (–). This type of adaptation occurs when the individual has
assimilated the cultural emphasis on the goal without equally internalizing the institutional norms.
 Ritualism, represents quite a different sort of departure from cultural standards than does
innovation. The ritualist is an over conformist. Here, the pursuit of the dominant cultural goal of
economic success is rejected or abandoned (–) and compulsive conformity to institutional norms (+)
becomes an end in itself.
 Retreatism, is the rejection of both cultural goals (–) and institutionalized means (–). Therefore,
retreatism involves complete escape from the pressures and demands of organized society. Merton
applies this adaptation to the deviant role ―activities of psychotics, outcasts, chronic drunkards, and
drug addicts.
 Rebellion, is indicated by different notation than the other adaptations. The two (+/-) signs show
that the rebel not only rejects the goals and means of the established society but actively attempts to
substitute new goals and means in their place. This adaptation refers, then, to the role behaviour of
political deviants, who attempt to modify greatly the existing structure of society. In his later work,
Merton uses the term nonconformity to contrast rebellion to other forms of deviant behaviour that are
atypical. The nonconforming rebel is not secretive as are other, the rebel publicly acknowledges his or
her intention to change those norms and the social structure that they support in the interests of building
a better, more just society.
Having identified the modes of individual adaptations, Merton defines anomie as: “a breakdown
in the cultural structure, occurring particularly when there is an n acute disjunction between the
cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of members of the group to act in
accordance with them.” In this conception cultural values may help to produce behaviour which is
at odds with mandates of the values themselves.
CONCLUSION:

Merton insists that anomie is essentially a sociological concept. Anomie refers to a “property of a

social system, not to the state of mind of this or that individual within the system.” For example, the
condition of anomie exits when there is a general loss of faith in the efficacy of the government,
when contractual cooperation is characterised more by mistrust that trust, or when there is an
uneasiness gripping the community because of alarming increase in crime rate.
Thus, the appeal of Merton‘s theory and a major reason for its far-reaching impact upon the field
of deviance lies in his ability to derive explanations of a diverse assortment of deviant
phenomena from a relatively simple analytical framework. This is precisely what a general theory
of deviance must do.

reference groups

A reference group is a collection of people that we use as a standard of

comparison for ourselves regardless of whether we are part of that
group. We rely on reference groups to understand social norms,
which then shape our values, ideas, behavior, and appearance. This
means that we also use them to evaluate the relative worth,
desirability, or appropriateness of these things.

Meaning:
Sociologists use the term ‘reference group’ for such groups that
individuals use as a standard for evaluating themselves and their
own behaviour. These are the groups to which we psychologically
identify with to which we may and may not belong but we may
aspire to belong. People do not actually have to be members of the
group to which they refer. Mustafa Sherif (1953) defined reference
groups as “those groups to which the individual relates himself as a
part or to which he aspires to relate himself psychologically”.

This definition points clearly to the importance of defining the

groups with which an individual identifies, whether or not he
belongs to them. These are the groups whose values, standards and
beliefs guide the person in carrying out his actions and in evaluating
himself.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is not uncommon to orient ourselves to more than one reference

group at a time. One’s family members, teachers, neighbourhood
and co-workers shape different aspects of our self- evaluation. In
addition, certain reference group attachments change during the life
cycle. We shift reference groups as we take on different statuses
during our lives. A reference group may be an actual group, a
collectivity or an aggregate, a person or personification of an
abstraction.

The term ‘reference group’ was coined by Herbert Hyman in

Archives of Psychology (1942) to refer to the group against which
individual evaluates his or her own situation or conduct. Hyman
distinguished between a membership group to which people
actually belong, and a reference group which is used as a basis for
comparison and evaluation.

A reference group may or may not be a membership group. Later on

Robert Merton and Alice Kitt (1950) refined the concept and
provided a functionalist formulation of it. Their work was
stimulated by Samuel Stouffer’s. The American Soldier (1949) in
which the concept of relative deprivation was developed.

Merton and Kitt point out that feeling of deprivation were less
related to the actual degree of hardship they experienced, than to
the living standards of the group to which they compared
themselves. Thus, relative deprivation is a special case of
comparative reference group behaviour. Merton later distinguished
reference groups and interaction groups (in Social Theory and
Social Structure, 1957).

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The originator of this concept, Hyman found in his study of social

class that people thought of as their status could not be predicted
solely from such factors as income or level of education. To a certain
extent, an individual’s self-evaluation of status depended on the
group used as a framework for judgment. In many cases, people
model their behaviour after groups to which they do not belong.

Quite often, an individual is torn between the demands of a

membership group to which he belongs but with which he does not
identify and the motivational dictates of a reference group of which
he is not a member. Social psychologists have termed this position
as marginality.

A familiar example is that of a principal of a private college who is

officially a member of the management group but who identifies
with the teachers on the college floor. This is a classic dilemma of
the marginal man (principal) who seeks to join a reference group to
which he is excluded and in doing so, he is rejected by the group to
which he already belongs.

Types:
Sociologists have identified two types of reference groups
as described below:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) Positive Reference Groups:
These are the ones we want to be accepted by. Thus, if we want to be
a film actor, we might carefully observe and imitate the behaviour of
film actors. These are the groups, collectivities or persons that
provide the person with a guide to action by explicitly setting norms
and espousing values.

(ii) Negative Reference Groups:

These groups we do not want to be identified with, also serve as
sources of self-evaluation. A person might, for example, try to avoid
resembling members of a particular religious group or a circus
group. A group rejected by or in opposition to ego’s own group, it is
‘the enemy’ or the negative group.

Importance and Functions:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The concept of reference group is important for understanding

socialisation, conformity, and how people perceive and evaluate
themselves, especially in relation to the self.

Reference groups perform three basic functions:

(1) They serve a normative function by setting and enforcing
standards of conduct and belief.

T. Newcomb (1953) writes:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“The significant thing about a reference group is, in fact, that its
norms provide frames of reference which actually influence the
attitude and behaviour of a person.”
(2) They also perform a comparison function by serving as a
standard against which people can measure themselves and others.

(3) They serve not only as sources of current evaluation but also as
sources of aspiration and goal attainment (as a means of antici-
patory socialisation). A person who chooses to become a professor
or a lawyer begins to identify with that group and becomes
socialised to have certain goals and expectations.

Reference Group: Types, Functions, Characteristics, Importance

BY PRAGATI KALIVE

The term reference group, originally coined by Hebert Hyman in his book The

Psychology of Status  (1942), is used to describe any group that an individual uses
as a point of comparison in the process of self-appraisal. The points of comparison
(or reference) that an individual looks at could be the norms, attitudes, and values of
the reference group members. For example, when a child joins a new school, they
will look at the other older students of the school for reference so that they know how
to dress, speak and behave in a manner accepted by the social group that is their
new school. In this case, the older students of the school become the reference
group. Thus, individuals get to choose from several existing social groups, which one
they look at as a reference group. Therefore, reference groups provide individuals
with a framework for social comparison.

It is not necessary that an individual only subscribes to a single reference group at

any given point in time. Individuals may look up to several reference groups
simultaneously, which can sometimes cause anomalies in their behaviour.
Furthermore, reference groups do not have a set size and do not require individuals
to identify with that group explicitly.

Most reference groups tend to be informal, i.e., they are unstructured and do not
work towards achieving specific goals. Instead, group membership is primarily based
on shared interests and values. Families and peer groups are examples of reference
groups that are typically informal. Conversely, there are also formal reference groups
wherein, unlike informal reference groups, the members of the collective are working
towards certain goals and also have a rigid structure and hierarchy in place in order
to achieve those goals. For example, labour unions and religious groups.
Functions of Reference Groups

 Reference groups provide individuals with a basis for reference and evaluation of
their attitudes and beliefs.
 Setting a benchmark of measure allows people to determine their self-identity and
their conduct in a social environment.
 Additionally, they act as a source of inspiration or aspirations for people to live up to
and work towards.
 Reference groups also help shape our values in terms of what we think is right or
wrong. This distinction is made when we decide which values we want to emulate and
which ones we want to reject.
 Finally, they allow us to immerse ourselves in a new environment by providing us
with a standard to follow so that we may fit in better.

Types of Reference Groups

Harold Kelley (1952) recognised two distinct types of reference groups based on the
functions that they perform –

1. Normative Reference Groups –

Normative reference groups serve as a source of an individual’s norms, values and

attitudes. These are groups that people look up to so that they may understand how
to conduct themselves in any given environment. For example, a new employee in
an organisation will look to older employees to understand what the acceptable code
of conduct is in that organisation.

2. Comparative Reference Groups –

Comparative reference groups are those which individuals use as a standard against
which they compare themselves during the process of self-appraisal. For example, in
a football team, junior players may compare themselves to their more experienced
counterparts in terms of skill, technique and performance.

American social psychologist Theodore Newcomb further distinguished between two primary
types of reference groups based on the nature of comparison –

1. Positive Reference Groups –

A positive reference group is one of which individuals aspire to become members.

Individuals typically admire the socialisation and behaviour patterns and attitudes of
this group and wish to emulate them.

2. Negative Reference Groups –

A negative reference group is one that individuals disapprove of and use their
patterns of behaviour and opinions, and attitudes as a standard to avoid.
Characteristics of Reference Groups

1. Reference groups set ideals of behaviour and attitudes, values and ideologies for
those who refer to them.
2. They are not organised groups of people who consciously or deliberately stand to
represent specific social values. Instead, they may be understood as conceptual
groups because they are non-membership groups.
3. In order to become a member of a reference group, individuals must adopt the
lifestyle and values of the group. For example, immigrants in Western countries learn
to incorporate Western culture into their own lifestyle so that they can cultivate a sense
of acceptance and belonging. 
4. An individual’s reference group is in a constant state of flux. As we enter into novel
social environments or new phases of life, we change the reference groups that we
look up to for self-appraisal.

Also Read: Primary and Secondary Groups

Importance

Eminent social psychologist Muzafer Sherif suggested that human beings are the
only species known to display reference group behaviour by modifying their conduct
based on learnings from their social environment. This is done either by assimilating
values from other individuals or groups or by acting in opposition to the social
standards of other individuals or groups.

 Thus, reference groups become sources of an individual’s understanding of self-

identity and cognition and perception.
 Furthermore, they allow individuals to evaluate their conduct and performance in any
given social or professional situation.
 Reference group behaviour exists in complex societies such as ours that pride
themselves in their capitalist and industrialised fabric. In such communities, studying
reference group behaviour may be a means to understanding social relationships and
attitudes.

Criticism

1. Reference groups may give rise to feelings of relative deprivation. For example,
suppose an individual chooses to compare himself to a reference group representing
a higher socio-economic class. In that case, they may feel inadequate because of
unequal opportunity and access to resources.
2. The theory of reference group behaviour answers the question of why people behave
in a particular manner in specific social situations. However, it does not offer any
means of controlling or modifying such behaviour.
3. The reference group theory is also understood only unilaterally, i.e.; It only discusses
how reference groups influence the behaviour of individuals who aspire to become
members of the group, and not how the membership of the individual impacts the
reference group.

As social beings, human beings are innately drawn towards one another and
naturally possess the ability to emulate another’s behaviour. This knowledge forms
the basis of the reference group theory. The workings of this theory seek to explain
and analyse human behaviour in varying social environments and conditions and
also understand how human beings evaluate themselves in order to arrive at a
deeper understanding of their self-identity.